- Jul 2, 2018
- 18,580
- 11,393
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
LOL
As if you could care less what those of my "ilk" think about your posts. I thought it was insulting. How's that?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
LOLAwaiting your analysis of post #4496 ...
What else would we expect? - lolI, alas, have no response short of condescending hubris.
Sorry this is a discussion forum. I discuss topics here. I don't chase various websites. If you can't bring it here, forget about it. I can't find anything about harrowing hell in my Bible.That's the same thing as I see it. The Harrowing of Hell has already been presented to you. I'll ponder those verses.
Hopefully that is not your substantive response to #4496. You were the one who issued the challenge regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22. "Saint Steven and his ilk" simply means "and those who think as he does." "Ilk" is not a pejorative term, but apparently Der Alte and I can't use any word not found in Miss Muffy's Primer for Toddlers without being deemed highfalutin.No love lost there...
As to why it’s there, my assumption has always been that the threats are intended as a kick in the pants for lazy Christians, not a way to scare non Christians into converting.Interesting, because this is the perspective I more typically hear from atheists: Christians are only Christians because they fear Hell. My response is that, in my 52 years of experience as a Christian, this is absolutely not the case. In my experience, "fear of Hell" barely registers on the radar screen of most Christians' motivations for turning to Christ and remaining in the faith.
"Fear of Hell," if genuine, implies some depth of belief in the God of Christianity. "I'll pretend to be a Christian just in case there is a Hell" isn't going to do the job.
Since Hell (whatever that may mean to you) is part of the Gospel message, who cares if this is part of a Christian's motivation? I assume the biblical warnings are there because they are supposed to influence our thinking.
Hell is a secondary issue. Whether a deity exists and, if so, whether He is the God of Christianity, are the central issues. As I suggested above, no one is going to have a genuine concern about Hell unless he or she already has some depth of belief God exists. Whatever coercive force the doctrine of Hell may have, it's hardly in the same category as standing face to face with God.
Signing off ... I really can't keep up the dialogue, and I'm just helping bury my own post about 1 Corinthians 15:22.
I lean more toward the Dick and Jane reader, "See Spot run. Run Spot run. Run, run, run."Hopefully that is not your substantive response to #4496. You were the one who issued the challenge regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22. "Saint Steven and his ilk" simply means "and those who think as he does." "Ilk" is not a pejorative term, but apparently Der Alte and I can't use any word not found in Miss Muffy's Primer for Toddlers without being deemed highfalutin.
I knew we could agree on something, before you left.Well, let's see:
I, alas, have no response short of condescending....
How do connect that to the current question? They simply repeat all, without saying why it might be limited. Modern exegetes look at the whole argument he is making and observe that it is discussing the resurrection of Christians.I lean more toward the Dick and Jane reader, "See Spot run. Run Spot run. Run, run, run."
Here is what the ECF say about 1 Cor 15:22
Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book V Chap. XII
3.This same, therefore, was what the Lord came to quicken, that as in Adam we do all die, as being of an animal nature, in Christ we may all live, as being spiritual, not laying aside God’s handiwork, but the lusts of the flesh, and receiving the Holy Spirit; as the apostle says in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth.”
Tertullian The Five Books Against Marcion. Book V Chap IX
But if we are all so made alive in Christ, as we die in Adam, it follows of necessity that we are made alive in Christ as a bodily substance, since we died in Adam as a bodily substance. The similarity, indeed, is not complete, unless our revival209 in Christ concur in identity of substance with our mortality210 in Adam.
Tertullian The Five Books Against Marcion VI. On the Resurrection of the Flesh. Chap. XLVIII
For if “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” (1Co_15:22) their vivification in Christ must be in the flesh, since it is in the flesh that arises their death in Adam. “But every man in his own order,” (1Co_15:23) because of course it will be also every man in his own body.
You want an honest answer? I've was a practicing appellate lawyer for almost 40 years. That was an adversarial arena of the highest level where my job was deconstructing other lawyers' arguments and supporting my own with adequate authority. I've made my living writing and editing for 50 years - I was a journalist before I was a lawyer. I know my IQ and my analytical abilities. I'm supremely confident in those abilities. I don't do "false humility." On the other hand, I recognize that forums such as this comprise participants of wildly different levels of intelligence, emotional maturity, analytical and communication skills, education and all the rest. I try to deal in matters of substance and accept people as they are.
Post #4496 was specifically stated to be a response to your challenge to me regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22, and it addresses multiple points and verses that expose your reliance on 15:22 as nonsense.LOL
As if you could care less what those of my "ilk" think about your posts. I thought it was insulting. How's that?
Oh, yeah, you're kickin' butt and takin' names with your inane one-liners, tough guy. In your dreams, as the saying goes.I thought kicking butts came first. As in...
Kicking butts and taking names. - lol
If you are trying to convince me that my loving heavenly father is a cosmic tyrant (akin to a pagan volcano god) that predestined the vast majority of humankind to burn in eternal torment with no hope of escape, don't waste your time or mine. Thanks.Post #4496 was specifically stated to be a response to your challenge to me regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22, and it addresses multiple points and verses that expose your reliance on 15:22 as nonsense.
I agree with that scripture John, and I believe it agrees with the principles I've already shared;From our perspective, we who receive Him are born again. This is also plainly stated in the first Altar call (Acts 2:36-41).
We agree; "WILL" not 'wish'. And His will trumped my will.It is the will of God for all to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:1-6. You don't have to be your own worst enemy.
Most of your "message" statements don't follow from the text, and more than a few are contradicted when the quotes are taken with the whole pericope considered. For example, your first one is not within the text at all with Jesus' statements being directed only at His disciples and telling them not to fear those who would persecute them because the alternative to dying of persecution was rejecting the truth and subjecting themselves to the death of their souls. It in no way offers correction to the traditional views of hell but instead treats the fear of hell as a real danger that is worth accepting an unjust death penalty to avoid.
Uh, you quoted from my post that you haven't read and don't plan to.If you are trying to convince me that my loving heavenly father is a cosmic tyrant (akin to a pagan volcano god) that predestined the vast majority of humankind to burn in eternal torment with no hope of escape, don't waste your time or mine. Thanks.
I haven't read your post and don't plan to. Goodbye.
I firmly believe that 1 Corinthians 15:22 refers to those that are "in Christ," in this lifetime, not that all will be become "in Christ" at the moment of salvation as UR-ists claim. That vs. is cited frequently by UR-ists as a UR proof text.How do connect that to the current question? They simply repeat all, without saying why it might be limited. Modern exegetes look at the whole argument he is making and observe that it is discussing the resurrection of Christians.
He's telling them not to be terrified, yes, but it is the coming persecution they are not to be scared of. The full message is that what seems like an out from temporary persecution is actually not because of the eternal consequences that come with it, so rather than fearing men who can(and will) kill their bodies if they must be afraid then God is who they should be afraid of. There need be no mention of eternal punishment because it is understood by the threat of the one who can kill body and soul. There is no indication that it "serves a different purpose" since the contextual use of the notion requires it be taken straight, otherwise there is no reason to fear God more than men since apparently God is toothless(according to your view) but men will viciously take and murder those who oppose them.So 2 sparrows sell for more? Guess I'm not keeping up with inflation. Perhaps we need to get our Abrahams on and bargain down on that bird.
Yes, Jesus is warning the disciples about Gehenna fire, it's no joke. But he's clearly teaching them to not be terrified. The teaching is about recognising God's paramountcy, His sovereignty over all things visible and invisible. He says nothing about eternal torment, and is quick to clarify that God is a loving God.
So are you saying that anyone who has thought scornfully or spoken in anger to a brother is hell-bound, all over, unforgiven, hopeless and cactus? And where does the fine line lie between an offense punishable by the Council and eternal hellfire? Kind of significant escalation in penalty from the 'Raca!' and 'Thou fool!' statements, isn't it? Couldn't God have scaled it a bit more proportionately? I mean, condign justice and all that...
Come on man, it's clear that Jesus is giving Gehenna a certain treatment, true he doesn't deny it exists or it can result in destruction of the soul, but he's hinting here that it serves a different purpose, which would be in line with the 'Refiner's fire' paradigm, if you will. He redeems Gehenna from its abuse by the corrupt politicians and a means of control and spiritual terrorism. As history has shown, the devil and fallen man (and greedy churches) just didn't want to let it go.
I don't recall using any pejorative epithets. Do you know what an aorist and a hitpael is?
Since Reagan was POTUS but that doesn't help you.What really matters is that you do.
There is no indication that it "serves a different purpose" since the contextual use of the notion requires it be taken straight,
apparently God is toothless(according to your view) but men will viciously take and murder those who oppose them.
I'll make explicit what is implicit in both of those commentaries: they're looking at the verse as an issue of federal headship. Irenaeus' statements render the difference as one of kind, with Adam speaking of those born of the flesh and Christ referring to those born anew in the Spirit. Given the broader teaching of Christianity being born after the flesh and being born in Spirit are not one and the same, so the two groups are being presented independent of each other. Tertullian is speaking of the manner in which we are made alive again, speaking of the fact that since Christ was made alive in a type of flesh so too will those who follow be made alive again in a flesh body. Now, Tertullian's statements may allow for rescuing a universalist reading if taken on their own but it is very doubtful he had any sort of universalist inkling in his comments given his extensive writings on damnation of the wicked. In either case, though, the central point is the headship of Christ or Adam which implies the two groups are not carrying the same reference, so "all" is limited by the prepositions.How do connect that to the current question? They simply repeat all, without saying why it might be limited. Modern exegetes look at the whole argument he is making and observe that it is discussing the resurrection of Christians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?